Akhtar Khan vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction  of this  Court  under  Section  528  of  the  B.N.S.S.,  2023  with the prayer to quash the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal  Code  and  also  the  entire  proceeding  in  connection  with  Complaint Case No.4443 of 2018 and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit dated 29.11.2025, filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2- victim and submit that the parties have entered into a compromise  and  consequent  upon the  same,  a joint  declaration has  been made and filed before the Family Court, Varanasi. In view of the compromise,  the  opposite  party  No.2-  victim  is  not  interested  to  proceed with the case. It is  next  submitted that the  genesis of the occurrence  is a marital dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further submit that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, as in view of the compromise, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. It is further submitted  that  the  same  prayer  of  the  co-accused  namely  Firoza  Khanam has already been allowed by this Court vide the judgment dated 03rd September, 2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3006 of 2019. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal  Code  and  also  the  entire  proceeding  in  connection  with  Complaint Case No.4443 of 2018, be quashed and set aside.

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the  State  submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State  has no  objection for  quashing the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,  Ranchi  whereby  and  where  under  the  learned  Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable  under  Section  323  and  504  of the  Indian  Penal  Code  and  also the entire proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.4443 of 2018.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, had the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph No.11 as under:-

“11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State  of Punjab,  (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012)  4  SCC  (Civ) 1188  :  (2013)  1  SCC  (Cri)  160  :  (2012)  2  SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench  of  three learned  Judges of  this Court adverted  to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

“61.…the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal  court  for  compounding  the  offences  under  Section  320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised  in accord with the guideline  engrafted in such power viz. :  (i) to secure  the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR  may  be  exercised where  the offender  and  the  victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases,  the  High  Court  may  quash  the  criminal  proceedings  if  in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and  prejudice and  extreme injustice would  be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would  tantamount  to  abuse  of  process  of  law  despite  settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”(Emphasis supplied)”

Perusal  of  the  record  reveals  that  the  offences  involved  in  this  case are not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity  involved  in  this  case  rather  the  same  relates to  private  dispute between the parties. No public policy is involved in this case.

Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim,  the  possibility  of  conviction  of  the  petitioners  is  remote  and  bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioners to great oppression  and  prejudice  and  extreme  injustice  would  be  caused  to  them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also the entire proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.4443 of 2018, be quashed and set asidequa the petitioners.

Accordingly,  the  order dated  05.07.2019  passed by the  learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal  Code  and  also  the  entire  proceeding  in  connection  with  Complaint Case No.4443 of 2018, is quashed and set asidequa the petitioners.

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.